How would you feel about ROI on miner hardware if the reverse was true?

If you had paid 100 BTC for a miner when BTC was worth $100

You mined 101 BTC but BTC value dropped to $50

Would you say you have made a ROI?

Yes! More BTC than you started with is a profit. Less BTC than you started with is a loss.

Exactly. It's incredible how is so difficult for some people to understand such simple concepts: You are buying a machine that mines bitcoins. If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad?

It depends on how many coins you spent on it, or on how many coins you could have bought with 7000USD when you paid for the unit.

Most of batch 1 customers bought their units in June, when BTC/USD was at $100, that means aprox. 70 coins per unit.

If a batch 1 Jupiter mines less than 70 coins in its lifetime then yes, batch 1 customers would have been better by buying BTC.

All the above is painfully obvious, and still some deny the obvious.

Do you understand the difference between bad, worse and worst?Is English your native language?

It's going to be damn close to BTC break even by the end of 6 months of hosting. By then I'll have around the same BTC that I would have had purchasing them AND a piece of history (The Jupiters). They may even still be profitable then and continue mining

until you are living your life entirely on bitcoin, not making the full btc you spent back means fuck all. Life runs on fiat right now and thats the ROI that actually matters.

And if you keep thinking that way, you'll end up poorer. Think of it all in $ terms. Imagine it's a $ mining machine. You have $100 in your pocket, I will sell you a machine that makes $1 coins, if you buy it and it only gives you 60 coins it was a bad investment, if it made 120 it was good

How would you feel about ROI on miner hardware if the reverse was true?

If you had paid 100 BTC for a miner when BTC was worth $100

You mined 101 BTC but BTC value dropped to $50

Would you say you have made a ROI?

Yes! More BTC than you started with is a profit. Less BTC than you started with is a loss.

Exactly. It's incredible how is so difficult for some people to understand such simple concepts: You are buying a machine that mines bitcoins. If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad?

Your investment in BTC would be good but your investment in the miner would be bad since you could have invested in MORE BTC for the same price directly with more flexibility to sell.

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote

If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote

If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference

Oh I didn't realize the debate was over which adjective is more appropriate. Again the decision to invest in a miner was bad, the decision to invest in BTC via mining was good but worse than investing directly.

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote

If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference

Oh I didn't realize the debate was over which adjective is more appropriate. Again the decision to invest in a miner was bad, the decision to invest in BTC via mining was good but worse than investing directly.

Now we agree Just one note: these statements can be made with 100% certainty now, but not when people made the decisions

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

And that over-simplification is why people are pushing back on your "explanation". Your explanation relies on someone having $7000 cash sitting someplace that could readily be converted into BTC or purchase a miner at equal cost in terms of time-value of money. Many people purchased a miner with a credit card at or near zero percent interest, where as getting a cash advance would have entailed a 20% or higher interest rate (typical of the cards I've seen, YMMV) in addition to a upfront fee. In addition, the miner itself retains substantial residual value for quite some time (if the ASICMiner gear is any indication) which is not being added to the equation (capitalization versus straight expensing of equipment for you accountant types out there) which further muddies the water of overall profitability. Especially when tax considerations are taken into account with same-year full expensing of business-related computer equipment being allowed for small businesses.

So, yes, in hindsight buying BTC would have been a *better* investment if one was to measure the progress of BTC mined as of RIGHT now versus selling bought BTC...but it hardly means that buying a miner was a *bad* investment considering that the miners have yet to reach their full potential of mining production AND they may yet have some to-be-determined residual value even after that which can be re-captured. While buying BTC will likely prove to have been the most optimal investment unless for some strange reason the diff increases start to level out....the margin of how much better is still very much in question at this point.

This all debate is sterile.Yes, as an investor with a 5 months perspective buying some BTC would have been more profitable; so WHAT!!! I am just glad after 29 days I just turn positive. For info I got the miners on the 7th and the Jups were getting 1.5 BTC each at that time vs 0.65 now.

What the naysayers should focus on is more on the amount of GH/s that were sold by KNC, Bitfury and other unknows. The mining companies are not individually responsible of the return IN BTC of their clients but collectively they are. Will they always find another sucker??? time will tell (although the 55nm Avalon chips are not doing that great on Tradehill, don't they?)

The more I think financially about it, the less I want to invest in mining gears again; but God it was fun to wait, fun to see, almost in real time, the progress, specially on sept 30th and the 1st. The experience was phenomenal and I am glad I did it...

PS Call me an idiot but I would have not dare buying USD 14400 worth of bitcoins at the time, so from MY perspective I did very well buying the miners...

And that over-simplification is why people are pushing back on your "explanation". Your explanation relies on someone having $7000 cash sitting someplace that could readily be converted into BTC or purchase a miner at equal cost in terms of time-value of money. Many people purchased a miner with a credit card at or near zero percent interest, where as getting a cash advance would have entailed a 20% or higher interest rate (typical of the cards I've seen, YMMV) in addition to a upfront fee. In addition, the miner itself retains substantial residual value for quite some time (if the ASICMiner gear is any indication) which is not being added to the equation (capitalization versus straight expensing of equipment for you accountant types out there) which further muddies the water of overall profitability. Especially when tax considerations are taken into account with same-year full expensing of business-related computer equipment being allowed for small businesses.

True I will give that one to you. People that are using credit to invest in BTC do not have option one. Although if I thought a Jupiter would make 95% or less BTC than I could buy directly, then I would use credit to purchase a TV/etc and sell it for BTC or cash and invest directly in bitcoin so I assume that anybody investing in a miner expects it to make more BTC than they could buy but your point still stands.

So, yes, in hindsight buying BTC would have been a *better* investment if one was to measure the progress of BTC mined as of RIGHT now versus selling bought BTC...but it hardly means that buying a miner was a *bad* investment considering that the miners have yet to reach their full potential of mining production AND they may yet have some to-be-determined residual value even after that which can be re-captured. While buying BTC will likely prove to have been the most optimal investment unless for some strange reason the diff increases start to level out....the margin of how much better is still very much in question at this point.

I agree that we do not know the total yield of our Jupiters and I think mine might have a positive BTC ROI since it was a day 2 but it's looking worse and worse with every difficulty jump. I'm not sure why everybody keeps talking about hindsite. It's simply a matter of measuring the BTC and fiat ROI to learn how you did. If I make a prediction that it's better to invest in a miner than directly in BTC then I will see if my prediction was accurate or not so I can become a better investor in the future based on empirical evidence and avoid similar miscalculations. People that ignore that information will continue to make the same mistake of investing in less BTC via mining than they could directly (unless of course they are investing borrowed money .

I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote

If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference

I don't think you understand that many people paid in BTC...not fiat. Many people DO NOT cash out to fiat (or buy BTC). If you don't make back the BTC you spent, you've lost something....that is a bad investment.

PS Call me an idiot but I would have not dare buying USD 14400 worth of bitcoins at the time, so from MY perspective I did very well buying the miners...

I am not implying you are an idiot, I also purchases a Jupiter and still hope it will have positive BTC ROI. What you need to realize is that you DID invest 14400USD in bitcoins. You invested that money in the BTC you predicted those miners to make. If the exchange rate had crashed you would have lost even if the Jupiters made positive BTC ROI. Nobody would buy your Jupiters for much if BTC was trading at $10. Investing in a miner has the ADDED risk of increasing difficulty and shipping delays so it was a higher risk than investing directly which is only effected by the exchange rate.

I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false:

Quote

If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad.

It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference

I don't think you understand that many people paid in BTC...not fiat. Many people DO NOT cash out to fiat (or buy BTC). If you don't make back the BTC you spent, you've lost something....that is a bad investment.

Exactly, I am in it for the long haul and have only ever invested BTC that I have mined starting with the GPU era and am only interested in increasing my BTC holdings so the exchange rate means very little to me. I understand why people get excited to make a fiat profit but I just want them to realize when it was not because of investing in mining but because they invested in BTC via mining so that they don't continue to purchase miners that ultimately reduce that fiat profit.

He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.

Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad?Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst?

I will try one more time to explain.

If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange.

No, you had an infinite number of choices on how to invest your money. Why single out buying BTC as the only other alternative to buying a miner? You could of, just as easily said, buy 7200 lottery tickets or buy shares of Facebook. Many, many investments could have been better or worse than buying a miner. Pointing out that buying BTC would have been better is not only obvious sitting here today with BTC at $240 but doesn't prove that buying a miner was a bad idea.

I personally did buy BTC directly as well as buy a miner and I lost my shorts on the direct BTC investment. Sitting here today, I know I should have just held it but I sold for a loss of ~30%. When you say "you should have bought BTC instead of a miner", what you are really saying is "you should have bought BTC on the day you bought your miner and used your powers of prediction to delay selling it until today."